Mr. Speaker, as I said several times in the House, the negotiations with the Americans for a joint new Canada-U.S. planning group for land and sea are underway and I think near completion. However, never has it been the plan for the Noradization of land and sea.

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the government has been consulting for five years with its territorial and provincial counterparts.

This side of the House realizes that we have no monopoly on good ideas. This is why we continue to consult with our provincial and territorial partners to find the best solutions that pose no undue burden on any region or sector in Canada in order to move ahead with this very important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, after five years of negotiations the government has effectively alienated every province in the country. The Prime Minister has stated that Canadians should have a full understanding of how Kyoto will affect their lives before ratification.

With ratification less than two months away, Canadians still do not know how Kyoto will affect them or more important, how it will protect our global environment.

When will the government provide a full cost benefit analysis as requested by the Government of Manitoba?

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that Canadians understand the initiative of Kyoto and it is actually the members in the official opposition who do not understand.

We have consulted with Canadians. We have consulted with industry and with the resource sector. We have tabled a draft plan. In November there will be another joint meeting of the ministers of environment and resources. We will continue to have meaningful discussions on a plan that is good for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's surplus for 2001-02 was close to $9 billion. The Bloc Quebecois estimates that the surplus for the current year, 2002-03, will be about $10 billion.

Instead of getting us to debate a meaningless motion here in the House today, should the government not be consulting us on how much of the surplus ought to be transferred to the provinces for health care?

Mr. Speaker, I presume in today's take note debate there is absolutely nothing stopping hon. members from sharing their views as to what part of any surplus should be spent on health care. In fact, I encourage hon. members to provide us with their insight and opinions.

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, there will be economic costs associated with addressing climate change. Our analysis shows that the impact on jobs and economic growth is quite modest relative to the strong growth expected over the next decade. By spreading the burden across all sectors of the economy, regions as well as consumers, this impact will be manageable by everyone.

Mr. Speaker, what every single province is looking for is a plan with real numbers, with real answers to real questions and the government does not have them.

Last week the Ontario legislature voted against passing a resolution to endorse the ratification of the Kyoto accord. The premier said that it is unworkable and would put hundreds of thousands out of work.

When will the government present a workable plan that does not endanger the jobs of thousands of Ontarians?

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that provincial views on the draft plan we tabled in the House last week will help define our approach as we move forward on action on climate change.

We are listening to the concerns of the provinces and industry and we will adjust our approach as we go forward. We will continue to consult to prepare a made in Canada plan. We also have to make decisions. Global warming will have a serious repercussion on our environment and public health.

We are looking at a slight slowdown in growth, but we will continue to create jobs in Canada with the new research and development jobs that are created by this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I said I would seek increased defence spending, and I have yet to specify what for exactly.

It is also true that there is much public support for defence. A survey conducted by Mr. Marzolini revealed a 33% increase in public support over the past five years. We now have the support of the Toronto Star , Thomas Axworthy, Lloyd Axworthy and many other Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, this is surprising. The minister is telling us that he will seek increased funding, but that he does not know what for. That is what he just said. What is worse is there has not been any substantive debate on the role the Canadian armed forces should play in the years to come.

Is it not odd for the Minister of National Defence to be asking for more money when the future role of the Canadian armed forces has not yet been considered? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

Mr. Speaker, we have received several reports from the Senate, this House and experts pointing to sustainability problems in terms of defence and funding. Everyone knows this. There is also the problem of military people spending too much time away from their family.

So, the problem is clear with respect to these pressures in the short term, and that is what I was referring to last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, from the west coast to the east coast provinces are sounding the alarm over the government's hasty and thoughtless Kyoto scheme.

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador states that if Kyoto is implemented, one-half of all predicted growth in that province will be wiped out. Unemployment in his province is over twice the national average.

Why would the Prime Minister need to build his legacy by adding to the unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that what we have said as we have consulted over the past five years, and continue to reiterate, is that the made in Canada plan by the federal government will pose no undue burden on any region or sector.

As a matter of fact the modelling that has been done by the working group over the last four years on behalf of the federal government, in partnership with the territorial and provincial governments, as well as the industry sector and Canadians, shows that we are looking at a slowdown in the growth of our GDP that is between 0.4% and 1.6%.

Mr. Speaker, this is a made in the PMO plan. Let us be honest about that.

The premier of Nova Scotia is warning that Kyoto could “decimate his province's economy”. He is asking the government to present a workable plan that will not destroy jobs, not devastate those on fixed incomes and not drain billions away from our social resources.

Why is the government hiding the Kyoto numbers and the fact that it will devastate the economy of Nova Scotia?

Karen RedmanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the government realizes, as is demonstrated in our draft plan, that there is action, room for action and demand for action, not only from provincial and territorial governments, not just from the federal government to get its House in order, but indeed consumers can also act in order to achieve these targets.

We are asking Canadians to look at making energy efficiency an important factor in their daily living: when they buy new homes, when they replace their appliances and for them to take mass transit. There is action in this plan for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, cement barriers went up around the American embassy here in Ottawa. We were told that they were erected in order to provide greater distance from the street in the event of a car or truck bomb attack thereby providing greater security for the people in the embassy.

My question is for the Solicitor General. In providing greater protection for the people in the embassy, are we not, by the same token, putting the Canadians neighbouring the embassy at greater risk? If not, what assurances can he give us to that effect?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern brought forward by the member for Ottawa--Vanier. Through his representation we are very much aware of the inconvenience as a results of the extra security measures around the U.S. embassy.

I am advised by the RCMP that in consultation with the community partners, it is working with stakeholders to reach satisfactory solutions for residents and businesses in the area and at the same time ensuring the safety and security of our international community and residents in the national capital region.

A candidate for the Liberal leadership said, in Brandon, Manitoba in 1984, that one of the first things he would do if elected Prime Minister would be to introduce a system of proportional representation. That candidate is now the Prime Minister.

Last week Law Commission of Canda insisted “Public engagement on the issue of proportional representation is essential to maintain a healthy democracy”.

Canadians are ready for this debate. A recent Environics poll said that PR now stands at 62% popular support.

Will the government keep the commitment made to the Canadian people by the Prime Minister and will this be part of his legacy?

Don BoudriaLiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to note what various leadership candidates are saying in their own respective campaigns. I know the member who is asking the question is involved in one of those at the present time. We are anxiously awaiting what he will have to say in that regard.

There had been a private member's bill, and perhaps there still is, on the order paper from that member and perhaps by others. These discussions in private members' hour, as we will know, are always handled by this side of the House at least and perhaps only as free votes.